Pop quiz: is this a) an ekklesia, b) a kirche, or c) a universal church?Most pastors I know teach that there are two kinds of churches. Once you are saved, they say, you automatically become a member of Christ’s church, which is an invisible organism composed of all believers worldwide, living and dead. They call this the “universal church.” Later, if you wish, you can join up with a more quaint and less pure local assembly, which is also called “the church.”
But does the Bible really teach two kinds of churches? Specifically, does it speak of a “universal church”? I don’t think it does. I think the idea of two churches is confusing and self-contradictory and ultimately weakens the institution that Christ established to spread the gospel message.
The words “church” and “churches” appear about 115 times in Scripture. With one exception, the word is always translated in the original Greek as ekklesia (in one instance, the English translators loosely used the word “churches” in reference to particular buildings--specifically, pagan temples). So ekklesia is the only word used to describe the New Testament church. Ekklesia has a specific meaning: it literally means “called out” or “summoned.” Christ did not invent the word: it was commonly used in that time to refer to “a summoned assembly”—such as the “town council” meetings in ancient Greece. The disciples would have interpreted it to mean not just “an election” but “an assembly of the elect.” Today we might use a term like “congress.” Of course a nebulous universal affiliation cannot assemble or convene.
[The English word “church,” by the way, is taken from the German kirche which refers to an actual building, making the whole discussion even more confusing since nowadays we wrongly think of a church as a building.]
There is no separate Greek phrase in Scripture connoting a “universal church” as opposed to an ekklesia. This fact alone is enough to do away with the teaching of a separate universal church. There is no passage in Scripture that claims there are two different kinds of churches. There is no passage that explains the differences between two such “churches.” There is no passage that suggests the word ekklesia is to have more than one definition.
The confusion comes when the word “church” is used in the singular. Christ and the New Testament writers sometimes use the generic singular to describe something that is plural. For example, “the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church” (Eph. 5: 23). Here Paul is using the idea of a generic church rather than one specific local assembly. He no more means that there is a “universal church” than he means that there is a “universal husband.” In fact, the concept of a universal husband is as much an impossibility as the concept of a universal local assembly. So this usage is the generic singular: each husband is the head of each wife, even as Christ is the head of each ekklesia. Here is another example: “…if he [the unrepentant church member] shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church” (Matt. 18: 17). He doesn’t say, “tell it unto the church at Jerusalem,” or some other specific local assembly, because He means the principle to apply to all churches, plural.
Yet another example is found in Mathew 16: “I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (v. 18). This does not mean “I will build one church only,” but rather, “I will build my (generic) kind of assembly.” If God had said in the Garden of Eden, “I will establish the family,” we would plainly understand that He was using the generic singular to describe multiple units of one type. The same applies to “the church”: an ideal type, manifested as multiple real individual assemblies.
Once we understand the usage of the generic singular, the doctrine of a “universal church” becomes less tenable and less necessary.
But does the Bible really teach two kinds of churches? Specifically, does it speak of a “universal church”? I don’t think it does. I think the idea of two churches is confusing and self-contradictory and ultimately weakens the institution that Christ established to spread the gospel message.
The words “church” and “churches” appear about 115 times in Scripture. With one exception, the word is always translated in the original Greek as ekklesia (in one instance, the English translators loosely used the word “churches” in reference to particular buildings--specifically, pagan temples). So ekklesia is the only word used to describe the New Testament church. Ekklesia has a specific meaning: it literally means “called out” or “summoned.” Christ did not invent the word: it was commonly used in that time to refer to “a summoned assembly”—such as the “town council” meetings in ancient Greece. The disciples would have interpreted it to mean not just “an election” but “an assembly of the elect.” Today we might use a term like “congress.” Of course a nebulous universal affiliation cannot assemble or convene.
[The English word “church,” by the way, is taken from the German kirche which refers to an actual building, making the whole discussion even more confusing since nowadays we wrongly think of a church as a building.]
There is no separate Greek phrase in Scripture connoting a “universal church” as opposed to an ekklesia. This fact alone is enough to do away with the teaching of a separate universal church. There is no passage in Scripture that claims there are two different kinds of churches. There is no passage that explains the differences between two such “churches.” There is no passage that suggests the word ekklesia is to have more than one definition.
The confusion comes when the word “church” is used in the singular. Christ and the New Testament writers sometimes use the generic singular to describe something that is plural. For example, “the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church” (Eph. 5: 23). Here Paul is using the idea of a generic church rather than one specific local assembly. He no more means that there is a “universal church” than he means that there is a “universal husband.” In fact, the concept of a universal husband is as much an impossibility as the concept of a universal local assembly. So this usage is the generic singular: each husband is the head of each wife, even as Christ is the head of each ekklesia. Here is another example: “…if he [the unrepentant church member] shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church” (Matt. 18: 17). He doesn’t say, “tell it unto the church at Jerusalem,” or some other specific local assembly, because He means the principle to apply to all churches, plural.
Yet another example is found in Mathew 16: “I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (v. 18). This does not mean “I will build one church only,” but rather, “I will build my (generic) kind of assembly.” If God had said in the Garden of Eden, “I will establish the family,” we would plainly understand that He was using the generic singular to describe multiple units of one type. The same applies to “the church”: an ideal type, manifested as multiple real individual assemblies.
Once we understand the usage of the generic singular, the doctrine of a “universal church” becomes less tenable and less necessary.
2 comments:
The answer to the quiz is "D) None of the above!" There is a nice building there, but I don't see any church!
Thank you for this great post! This is included in the Christian Carnival, up later today at Diary of 1.
Post a Comment